Inspector of Police, Gadhinglaj Police Station v. Mr.P.D.Dalvi
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bombay Police Act, 1951 s. 33(w)
- Bombay Police Act s. 33(w)
- Prevention of Gambling Act
Judgment
Mr.P.D.Dalvi for petitioner. Mr.Rajesh More, APP for State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATE : 20th January 2012 PC :
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
The petitioner has prayed that the respondent no.1 be directed not to take any coercive action whatsoever against the petitioner society while their members playing "Rummy" at the place at Grampanchayat Milkat No.685, at village Halkarni, Tal. Gadhinglaj, Dist. Kolhapur. The petitioner is a society. Its purpose is to promote interest in the indoor games as well as outdoor games as well as to arrange games for their members. The petitioner submitted application to respondent nos.1 and 2 for grant of appropriate licence to conduct indoor games like playing Rummy. It is the stand of petitioner that the Police did not reply to the said application, however, insisted to seek licence under section 33(w) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Section 33(w) of the Bombay Police Act deals with licence 2 of Entertainment at the places of Public Amusement. It is the contention of petitioner that their intention is not to allow the public at large but restricted only to their members as far as playing Rummy is concerned.
The learned APP states that the Police authorities have not passed any order either written or oral for closing down the club till today nor given any threats to do the same. In view of the statement made by the learned APP, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.
It is directed that the Police Authorities shall not interfere with the lawful activities of the petitioner society. This order will not preclude the police authorities from taking any action against the club, if any legal requirement is not fulfilled by it. Similarly, the police authorities are not precluded from taking action against the club, against its employees or any of its members if activity of gambling or any other activity is done in the premises which is prohibited under the provisions of Prevention of Gambling Act, Bombay Police Act or any other law. In such case, the police can take action according to law.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Police Act, 1951 — s. 33(w); Bombay Police Act — s. 33(w); Prevention of Gambling Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 20 Jan 2012. The bench was RANJIT MORE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.